The Raw and the cooked: pulling apart Sony's Raw compression

Raw compression won't be apparent in every image, but there are circumstances in which it risks undermining what should be a great image. Photo by Rishi Sanyal

Update: September 15, 2015: Sony has announced that the a7S II will have the option to shoot uncompressed Raw, with firmware being rolled out for some existing models, including the a7R II used here, later.

A Raw file is a Raw file, right? Well, not exactly. Lately, there's been a lot of talk (and a lot of anger) about the compression Sony uses in its Raw files. Compressed Raw files aren't uncommon, but they're usually compressed in a way that retains all the original 'raw' data from the sensor. Or, at least, all the information that's visually meaningful.

Instead Sony has, for several years now, chosen to apply non-optional lossy compression to its Raw output. This isn't likely to be an issue for many users, since the impact is generally quite small, but as the company shows its ambitions in the high end market, with the launch of the a7 series and a dedicated support system for professionals, the impact on image quality deserves a little scrutiny.

What exactly is going on with Sony's Raw files, and what might the potential impact be? The compression system has been investigated and detailed by Iliah Borg and Alex Tutubalin, and we've tried to distill their findings. It's important to keep this in perspective, though: in many circumstances you won't see this impact or encounter the limitations it can impose.

What's happening?

Sony's compression process has two parts, and each of the two aspects have a different impact on the Raw files. The first step applies a compression curve to the data. This is a bit like a tone curve and is used to map the 14 bits of captured data down to an 11-bit space.

Although this part of the process is lossy, a well-designed compression curve has little to no impact on image quality. This is because although shot noise makes up a decreasing proportion of the captured data in bright regions, the actual magnitude of the noise increases. This means it doesn't make sense to retain all the information about bright regions of the images, since a lot of that information will just be recording the subtleties of the noise.

Ideally, then, you can get away with a lot of compression in bright tones so long as you preserve increasing amounts of information at the dark end of the file. Unlike the (optional) compression curve Nikon uses, Sony's doesn't fully exploit this phenomenon, meaning that some useful data is lost, as well as some of the noise. This will, theoretically, reduce the dynamic range available in the files.

Stage two

Sony's Raw compression then has a second stage, where the image is divided up into a series of 16 pixel stripes for each color channel. Rather than recording a separate value for each of these pixels, the Sony system records the brightest and darkest value in each stripe, and a series of simple notes about how all the other pixels vary from those extremes. These notes are recorded using fewer bits than it would take to record the actual pixel values and it's this step that appears to cause most of the problems.

When there's not much difference between the brightest and darkest pixel, the system is able to describe the scene pretty well. However, as soon as you have a big gap between bright and dark, the 7-bit values used to note the differences aren't sufficient to precisely describe the original image information.

The localized, second step of the compression means detail around high-contrast edges isn't correctly recorded and this inaccuracy becomes increasingly apparent if you try to adjust those regions of an image.

This image was created from a Raw file that had been underexposed, to retain highlight detail, then pushed 5EV when it was processed. This may seem extreme but it can be useful to be able to selectively brighten areas of an image, without the risk of revealing lost data.

This imprecise recording of the original image data leads to artifacts in stripes around high-contrast edges in the photos. These errors can become even more pronounced if you increase the brightness or contrast in those regions when processing the files.

14-bit and 12-bit readout

To compound matters, several Sony cameras we've tested appear to switch their sensor read-out from 14 bits to 12 bits in certain modes: further reducing the amount of dynamic range that the camera ever captures, even before the effects of the compression process are brought into play. Continuous shooting, Bracketing and Bulb exposure modes will all push most Sonys down to 12-bit capture mode, which is then subjected to the two stage compression.

Conclusion

These approaches probably made sense in consumer-grade cameras, back in the days where processing power and storage space came at a significant premium. However, on a camera as expensive as the a7R II, which is likely to be used for quality critical shooting, it's hard to justify clumsy compression that can, depending on the image, throw away data you were expecting to have access to.

Overall, the effects of this compression aren't often visually significant. Their impact should mostly be understood as a reduction in processing latitude, since it tends only to be when you push and pull the Raw files that the missing data becomes visible. The compression curve throws away more shadow data than would be ideal: reducing dynamic range. There's a further reduction if you shoot in a mode that drops the camera into 12-bit readout mode. Meanwhile, the localized compression of tonal differences only has an impact near high-contrast edges.

And it's not just heavily-pushed images that start to reveal the lost data: this is a straight out-of-camera JPEG file (shot with DRO Auto), still showing stripes extending from a high-contrast edge. It looks still worse in a gently processed Raw conversion.

It's worth noting, though, that the impact of this process is lessened in the company's higher pixel-count bodies, since a 32-pixel stripe will be a smaller proportion of the a7R II's 40MP images than it would in a 12MP image from the a7S.

It's quite possible to shoot for years and never notice the impact of these design choices Sony has made, but they do add up to mean that you can't access the full capability of the camera. Most people shoot Raw precisely because they want to preserve the maximum possible processing latitude and keep their creative options open. Raw compression isn't the end of the world by any means, but it throws away a little bit of a camera's capability, which might be a little hard to swallow if you've paid multiple thousands of dollars for a cutting-edge camera.

This article is based on the investigative work of Alex Tutubalin and Iliah Borg, creators of LibRaw and Raw Digger.

I rather wait for more review after the update is completed and tested to see if 14 bit problem is solved or not for the Sony camera with different image engine than Nikon and other company. So we don't really know if that is going to ever solve the issue problem. Nikon raw compression had seen no issue problem whatsoever, only a bit of problem with colour error when using shadow push, not artifacts. Sony suffered artifacts, Nikon didn't. So we shall wait and see. Jump over conclusion will not help.

If they allowed lossless compressed on RAW images, why would anybody upgrade to the A7r3? So you are stuck with uncompressed RAW or lossy compressed RAW. Still, better to have the choice for now. I dont mind uncompressed RAW.

Uncompressed RAW ! Great news for those who need it, and for those who were held off because of the fear of losing quality.It remains to be seen if it will be (losslessly) compressed RAW. Hopefully, so files and speed are preserved.

For those blaming Sony for not listening to customers, I think it's yet another proof they are wrong. Sony really wants to make money with their camera division. This is great news, because they have to prove their commitment to producing top of the line products and satisfying customers.

And the best part of the announcement is USER SELECTABLE. Thankfully, we are not all subjected to monster files due to the whining of a few. I have yet to have a client complain about the compressed RAW photo and their check didn't bounce.

Not because of the uncompressed option as such (I'm not interested in it, personally), but simply because they listen to the voice of the community... however irrational that voice might sometimes be ;-)

Although I think it will help a lot for A7RII though cos of very high MP reading and would need much better raw bits. So 14 bit will help. Don't forget when have very large mega pixel, having compressed raw will end up with a bigger problem than older A7 with only 24 MP or smaller. So the issue problem will be much more noticeable at larger MP than the usual FF of 20MP or more. Good on Sony for making that decision.

It's a great camera, no question - it really is - but it's a fair point to critique. My D700 from 2008 has several RAW options including 14 bit (as do some entry level APS-C cameras now), and the A7RII sensor has been given the highest rating by DxOMark (...yep, realize the limitations and how they rated the DxOOne) without any consideration of this limitation.

There's no mention on the Sony site of any loss in the RAW files under Content, Specifications or Features, which is odd especially given it's a two step process (or three if you're using AF continuous).

How strange, one pays 3200 USD for a body and then complains when the image quality is lowered by a problem camera has had for years and all that time Sony keeps using "14 bit RAW" in product commercials!

This is actually very similar to the Amiga's "HAM" video mode, which was OK for displaying images but terrible for storing them (because the Amiga had such low resolution — as did most computers back then — you could see the color fringing very easily in almost any on-screen image). Why on earth you would do this to RAW files when simply saving them as is would be technically simpler baffles me.

HAM could store 4096 colors with only 6 bits per pixel (instead of the 12 bits it would have required).

The 2 first bits where "control" bits:

00 meant that the remaining 4 bits where refering to specific color in a fixed 16 colors palette

01 meant that you wanted to modify the red value, so you "held" the red and blue value from the previous pixel and you replace the red value with the remaining 4 bits.

10 was the same thing but for green.

11 again the same thing but for blue.

So you see where this mode had limitations, when you had an abrupt change of color from one pixel to the other on the horizontal directions, you had color banding.

For example to go from white to black, it took 3 pixels. The first one was white, the next one was yellow (the red was at zero but the green and blue still at maximum value), the next one was blue (red and green at zero, blue at maximum value), and finally a black pixel (all 3 colors at zero).

I posted this at a lower level (in response to another comment. Thought it might be useful to others):

If one wants to be a purists, RAW truly does not exist If one defines it by "Throwing data away". The act of using an A/D converter to digitize an analog signal " Throws data away". Anyway the Sony RAW process is a result of engineering decisions and trade offs which all manufactures do. It is "unfortunate" that we have the technology and tools search look at and magnify . Based on the amount of technology and efforts Sony has shown since the acquisition of Minolita they are probably working on these corner case observations. Probably not a firmware fix but down in ASIC design/ code.

If your work is impacted by the results of this design, then you probably do not want this as your tool.

'The act of using an A/D converter to digitize an analog signal " Throws data away".'

Sure but it's data you couldn't practically store. Storing analog data on a wax cylinder is lossy too. Only when you convert to digital is there even a prospect of lossless capture.

Another case where cameras mess with data before storing "RAW" files is mapping out hot pixels (actually I'm not sure if they do it in the camera, or pass the hot pixel data in the RAW file for the RAW converter to use; the latter would be "purer").

Anyhow, the point is kind of moot since Sony just announced they're fixing the issue in firmware (in the A7R ii and the A7S ii at any rate).

Any sampled system is just that. You cannot capture it all (nor do you need too). As far as throwing away information... if redundant that's ok. One must still sample fast enough to preserve the highest "frequency component". You are correct...moot as far as topic...however I wonder what really is going on under the hood.

'One must still sample fast enough to preserve the highest "frequency component"'

One simply samples as best as one can and stores what one gets. Let's suppose you have an analog sample with theoretically >14-bit precision, but your A/D converter outputs a 12-bit signal (which will also have an error rate). All you can do (with a digital system) is record the 12-bits you get. You can store those 12-bits losslessly or you can store them lossily, but the point is storing what you've got losslessly is *the best you can do*. You're always going to suffer some kind of loss between reality and your digital signal — whether it's in the lens, the sensor, or the A-to-D conversion is kind of immaterial — they're just a system that emits bits as far as your recording system is concerned.

The fact is that Sony was getting a 14-bit signal and then storing it lossily, and that was stupid.

The Sony cameras coming out now are really promising. However the compression of RAW make them no go for astrophotography where alle measures are taken to avoid noise and artefacts. So, what would it take for Sony to add the selection "Pure RAW".

How shall this remind me of all the cry of "poor DR" in Canon sensors. Now the same writers try to explain how lossy RAW compression is "OK". Whatever, Sony makes interesting cameras. It seems nobody is perfect.

@Jylppy I think the difference is that Sony could easily give its users the option of a lossless compression scheme with limited impact on performance or cost. Could Canon do the same to increase dynamic range to EXMOR levels?

That's not the point. The point is there is technical glitch and its reasons can be whatever. And while Canon receives Spanish Inquisition, fanboys try to bend the reality and say "compression is kind of OK" instead of giving Sony the same Spanish Inquisition. Btw. Usually such an solutions have been developed for an reason (e.g I/O bottleneck on image processor or memory buses).

There remain only 535 votes (of a whopping 2,500 limit) before petition goes straight to Sony CEO. And even though petition was started 9 months ago, there is no guarantee it won't be filled up in a matter of hours now!!

Don't miss this opportunity to leave YOUR mark in the history of pixel peeping!!!

Funny, that's my petition. Thanks for bringing it up here. :) But there is no signature limit to be honest. The change.org petition just automatically shows the next petition goal. I think this is some kind of motivation system.

I really couldn't care. I have the a7r and am blown away by the wonderful detail in A+ prints which is as large as my Epson prints. The camera was cheaper and smaller than canon or Nikon so I am a happy camper. Makes more sense to me than the a7s

I'd love to see the hands of all the folks here on this thread who are complaining about the lossy Sony RAW format who listen to their music in MP3 format. if you do then you should stop listening to all your music as you are liar to yourself. MP3 is so compressed compared to Full RAW CD or FLAC etc formats. But you still listen to all that loss in music high fidelity and buy the mp3 format instead of getting the CD and ripping your own formats to your own player! Sacrilege for sure. wake up

Not a good comparison:- how many times do you crop and listen to segments of your MP3s?- Do you post process your MP3 to make critical parts of it more audible and pleasant to your taste?- MP3 music files are studio-produced by a combination of many vocal and instrumental sources. Original tracks are sampled at much higher rate and dynamic range than its final MP3 product (it is like capturing multi-exposure RAW data, post process it and then delivering final JPEG to the end user).- Human vision is much more sensitive to contrast changes in still image (less sensitive in video formats, which is composed of a sequence of images, just like stream of freq/amp listened to in MP3)- many other differences

One needs to start with decent files, WAV, FLAC, DSD, but there are much much better portable players than iPods, from inexpensive FiIOs to $3500 Astell & Kern machines, with Sony and Pono at the lower end.

My tube amp is an inexpensive Chinese made one, though the amp tubes are vintage from about 1970. Sounds great, when not experiencing cheap Chinese manufacturing problems--which have been solved for a while now. And the DAC feeding it from the computer only cost $200.

I wish Apple would launch an iPod with decent sound; the Classic had a good reputation. Apple needs to improve the soundcards in its laptops, and the sound quality of iTunes, the software, needs big improvements.

In photography the very concept of lossless is "lossy". Think about the countless dead/hot pixels that all real sensors have. You certainly know that the bad pixels are silently mapped by the camera processor, in an operation that is not essentially different from what a lossy RAW codec does. In the big picture, lossless RAW is an illusion. But photography is also an illusion...

Not only that (hot pixels mapping etc.), but we also lose 1/3 of color information for each pixel of Bayer sensors, which is then "guessed" by demosaicing algorithm. As a result, IR filter-less cameras have aliasing issues even at low ISO, but any camera goes bananas with colors at high ISOs.

And yet, strangely, I haven't heard "This is BS! Canon/Nikon/etc. cannot do THIS to us!! I am switching to Sigma/Foveon!!!" lately...

These are all all true, which are good examples of filling/extrapolating info that sensor did not capture. But what Sony is doing dropping info that is already captured by sensor (e.g. dropping LSB, according to DPR statement), which is an extremely crude way of reducing noise.It is not clear why Sony has chosen this approach and a clear statement by Sony could clarify and perhaps answer the concerns.

Not even close. Where did that come from? Can you please provide a quotation?

> ... which is an extremely crude way of reducing noise.

It has nothing to do with reducing noise, at all.

First stage essentially compresses highlights, because there's much more headroom for that compared to shadows. Second stage simply packs result of the first stage compression, honestly trying to retain all the info from the first stage.

(BTW, "we also lose 1/3 of color information" should read "we also lose 2/3 of color information", of course...)

Nope. No-one would ever notice those "moon artifacts" if not looking very carefully, for a very particular thing.

> read the article

I not only read it, but all the original materials (dating back to 2011) by Russian authors of RAW digger. In Russian. And you know what? I actually like this compression. Everything is a trade-off, and this one is OK with me. I happen to like 11fps of my a6000, and I believe smart compression scheme contributed to that.

Look, I have zero brand loyalty. I still own a 5DII, but don't use it these days (too freaking big for me!), but use my Canon glass with Metabones adapter.

If there were anything that I'd seriously dislike about Sony cameras, I'd just switch (again) to something else.

Speaking of eating, maybe a comparison between a chicken and a photographic image helps to better understand the difference between a lossless and a good lossy RAW encoding. A "lossless" chicken is composed of meat, feathers, bones, guts, etc. There is nothing wrong if most of the people prefer to eat a good "lossy" chicken, that is, only the meat parts.

I don't understand a word of this ,except that we seem to be being short-changed by the camera makers. The problem I have with this sort of article is that I want to understand it as it's fascinating, but realize I'm just too stupid. I think I'm going to do more film work in future.

But the fact is that every company who does this, should be open about it and the results should be compared between various makers.

Sony is not up-to-par on the highest contrast transitions. And Canon is not in pushing it's low-photon-count voltage differentials on the CMOS wells. It's compression too and very lossy at that (S/N drops like a brick, just look at the banding in shadows if you push or pixel peep the low-exposed shadows).

For those, who are interested in technical details, instead of emotional ones, I suggest to read the original blog of the authors: http://blog.lexa.ru/2011/10/28/o_lineinosti_raw_i_ettr.htmland the algo in code:http://blog.lexa.ru/2012/12/29/o_sortakh_raw_u_sony.htmlSure, many will need the help from google translate for that.From the tone curve, and the text, I reckon the compression loses data in the highlights, not in the shadows, as the dpreview article suggests.Furthermore, if the brightness differences fit within 7 bits, the compression is effectively lossless. That is why only the sharp tonal transitions are affected.

There, a very interesting observation had been made: the fact that pixels are directly addressable (I wrote about that here few days ago) makes it possible concurrent decompression (and I'd add compression as well) on multi-code CPUs, which makes huge difference these days...

Also, the author points out (http://forum.onliner.by/viewtopic.php?t=4945205&start=13780#p71065866) that "In case of DNG, [format] creators tried to [include provisions for concurrent processing] by subdividing image into tiles, which can be decoded independently (and metadata contains offsets to tiles), although there may be only one tile. But [creators of] CR2/NEF/PEF and many others -- did not [include such provisions]."

My conclusion from this: as numbers of cores per CPU grow (and devs utilizes them better), speed advantage of ARW2 over other formats will only grow as well.

If you ask yourself why Sony is using that lossy compressed RAW, the answer is simple:Money.50% guaranteed compression lets you- use older or cheaper components towards external memory- use exising designs (save development cost) towards external memory- use a bigger sensor - say 42MP instead of 24MP - without to much effort- look better in the continuous shoot department- sell the same cam under a differnt name as "professional" version

That sounds good except to take advantage of the higher quality 2K & 4K video recording modes of these new cameras you are required by Sony to buy newer SDXC U3 memory cards.

For cameras at this level there is no excuse anymore for using 7 bit offset compression schemes. Even in a Rebel there is little reason for these kinds of tricks. Storage space is not the issue it was 10 years ago.

A A7r ll firmware update can easily fix the raw compression error. Personally I only use Jpeg files in my A7r so i am not bothered by Sony RAW files, error's. With the A7r keeping the shutter above 1/160th is my main goal in legacy manual focus lenses at 7.2x. I gotten some incredible ultra sharp results from Sony Chips and its processing engine. I read Canon has broken the 250 meg file barrier, that chip interest me, as does Canon's 4M ISO scale chip for astronomy photos. If I attach my future camera of 250 Meg file to my largest telescope and crop the images, I should be able to see the lunar rover tracks on the moon from 1969. Watch out NASA there's a new technology coming.

True Nikon offer 14 bit raw that's the way it should have been done in first place in all of Sony camera. Professional photo editing would want that to be able to do more than they can do to recover shadow especially!

@William Koehler Yes, the sensor division of Sony makes sensors for Pentax, Sony and Nikon, but so what? They also share some Nikon technology and use Nikon steppers to make those sensors. Again, so what? It's not relevant. The discussion here is what Sony has chosen to do to the RAW data.

Regardless on how some fanbois and Jpeg shooters want to spin it, most of us who shoot RAW with expensive professional grade cameras do not want a lossy type file except maybe as an option. It doesn't matter if we shoot Canon, Nikon, Sony et al, we'd like to have our RAW files to be as RAW as possible.

Memory is cheap. Storage space is cheap. Computers are robust as is converter and editing software. We do not need nor want the camera makers to babysit us on things like this when it comes to serious gear. Sure, entry levels, no problem. Some of those users only use Jpeg anyway, but if Sony wants to be taken seriously, they need to be more serious about their better gear.

Literally ridiculous. True lossless compression is a necessity in this level/price of camera. I won't be buying any A7 series until Sony fixes this, and I know at least one very serious pro landscape photographer who would switch in a heartbeat if this is fixed. What are Sony thinking? Not a serious camera yet.

@halc There is "true lossless compression". You took the OP's words out of context so your argument is pointless. Maybe there is no "true lossless" image from a digital camera because of all the stuff the camera has to do to digitize the image coming through an imperfect lens in the first place. But that is different than applying a "true lossless compression" to said imperfect image. Are you trying to say that since the image being recorded digitally is imperfect and has losses inherent in it there is no harm to introducing more imperfections with a lossy compression?

3dit0r: True. And it's a nice way to completely ignore the fact that Sony's lossy compression, post sensor read-out, is very poorly thought out and introduces far more obtrusive artifacts than the compression schemes offered by other manufacturers. Want to see lossy compression done right? Check out Nikon's.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.